Something unusual about “virgin” and Magi

by abiather 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  abiather

  JWs view every verse of the Bible as inspired. This is nothing but following the blind guides of ancient times! Let us see how it is!

  1) Someone felt the need of projecting Jesus being born through a virgin. Hence got the idea incorporated into the Mathew’s gospel: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).” (Mathew 1:22, 23) This supposed prophesy is found in Isaiah chapter 7:1-17. It speaks of a “young woman” (almah), not about virgin. And interestingly, it speaks about somebody else, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

  2) Magi from the east coming to visit Jesus and presenting him “him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.” (Mathew 2:1-12) They actually behaved as if they KNEW the theology that was developed gradually in the later centuries! Gold symbolizes gift for a King; frankincense a gift for a priest; Myrrh a gift for someone to die. It means people from the East, who had no theological insight of Jesus perfectly understood without any training about the three major roles Jesus would play—KING, PRIEST, AND MESSIAH WHO WOULD DIE. It is unlikely that people from the East would understand them while Jesus’s own disciples could not, even after receiving training directly from Jesus for over three years. (Mathew 26:10-13 Contrast John 6:60)

  These are some of the instances where WT is following the blind guides of ancient times.

  “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”—Mathew 15:14
• 

  kaik

  I remember from my studies in KH that these three maggi were sent by Satan, who itself was the star of Bethelem.
• 

  abiather

  kaik,

  If they were sent by Satan, why should Satan help them with that particular choice of gifts with theological insight into Jesus's proposed three roles—something which disciples could not have grasped even after directly being trained by Jesus himself, who showed even power over natural forces and death itself!

  Would that not mean that Satan is co-operating with God and Jesus?
• 

  cofty

  Abiather, Are you connected in any way with the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University or any of its many alternative names and sub-groups?

  Yes or no?
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Site rule #13 (unlucky for some). No preaching, no cult recruitment, no mental delusions of claims to "Divine Truth".
• 

  Bobcat

  Gold symbolizes gift for a King; frankincense a gift for a priest; Myrrh a gift for someone to die.

  The NICNT-Matthew commentary comments on this (pp. 75-76):

  • Their gifts are those of the affluent: gold, then as now the symbol of ultimate value, and exotic spices, which would not normally come within the budget of an ordinary Jewish family. Frankincense (which came from Southern Arabia and Somolia) was an expensive perfume, and was burned not only in worship but in important social occasions; for its nonreligious use (with myrrh) see Song 3:6; 4:6, 14; cf. Sir 24:15 . Despite the symbolism traditionally discerned in the gifts of the magi since the time of Irenaeus (gold for royalty, frankincense for divinity, and myrrh for death and burial - the latter based on John 19:39), myrrh, too, was primarily used as a luxurious cosmetic fragrance (Esth 2:12; Ps 45:8; Prov 7:17; Song 1:13; 5:1, 5). These are luxury gifts, fit for a king. The reader who knows the OT stories cannot fail to be reminded of the visit of the Queen of Sheba with her gifts of "gold and a great quantity of spices" to the son of David in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 10:1-10), and of the imagery which the visit provided for subsequent depictions of the homage of the nations to the Jewish Messiah (Ps 72:10-11, 15; Isa 60:5-6).
  • A footnote says: For the royal honors implied by the gifts see J. H. Neyrey, Honor, 59-60. [A preview of this book exists on Google Books, but pages 59-62 are, unfortunately, not included. - Bobcat; But see here, here, and here for various patristic interpretations of the gifts.]

  Sirach 24:15 - http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Sirach%2024%3A15

  Incidentally, for thoughts on the "star" and the magi account of Matthew 12, different from the WT interpretation, see here, here, and here.

  Take Care
• 

  Bobcat

  On Matthew 1:23, the NICNT-Matthew commentary says (pp. 55-7):

  • A reader familiar with modern study of Isaiah will notice two problems about Matthew's first formula-quotation. In the first place, while the LXX, which Matthew follows (except for one word), unambiguously refers to "the virgin," English versions of Isaiah generally translate the Hebrew as "the young woman." The definite article suggests that a particular woman is in view, but the context does not identify her; interpreters have suggested Ahaz's wife (note that the prophecy is addressed to the "house of David" v. 13), or Isaiah's (in view of the similar symbolic use made of the birth of Isaiah's son in 8:1-4). But if this is what he meant, it is remarkable that Isaiah did not use the normal Hebrew word for a "woman" or "wife," issa, which would be expected of a childbirth within a marriage. The word that is actually used is 'alma, which occurs very rarely in the OT [Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 68:25; Pr 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8]. While it is clear from some of those OT contexts that the 'alma is sexually mature, the word is not used elsewhere of a married woman; the person referred to as 'alma in Gen. 24:43 has been specifically described as a virgin in v. 16. Isaiah's choice of this unusual word in connection with childbirth therefore draws attention; it does not explicitly mean "virgin" (the Hebrew for which is betula), but it suggests something other than a normal childbirth within marriage. It was presumably on this basis that LXX translated it by parthenos ("vigin"). Matthew is following the LXX, but the Hebrew underlying it is sufficiently unusual to suggest that it was not an arbitrary translation.

  • The second problem is that Isaiah's prophecy, uttered to Ahaz in about the year 735 B.C., is not about an event in the distant future. Its point is to specify the time of the imminent devastation of both Judah's enemies and Judah herself through the Assyrian invasion: it will be before the son called Immanuel, soon to be born, has grown up (Isa 7:15-17). This raises an issue which we will note several times in Matthew's use of OT prophecy, that whereas we prefer to think of a single specific fulfillment of a prophet's prediction, Matthew's typological interest leads him rather to find patterns which will recur repeatedly throughout God's dealings with his people. In this case, he has good warrant for taking the prophecy concerning "Immanuel" as having relevance beyond its undoubted immediate aim, for the name "Immanuel" will occur again in Isa 8:8 as that of the one to whom the land of Judah belongs, and its meaning will be developed in 8:10, "for God is with us." Moreover, the prophecy in 7:14 of the birth to the "house of David" (Isa 7:13) of a child with so extraordinary an honorific title prepares us for the even more remarkable description in 9:6-7 of a child who is to be born "for us," and whose multiple and still more extravagant title marks him out not only as the Messiah of the line of David but also as "Mighty God, Everlasting Father." The theme will be taken up again in 11:1-5 with the prophecy of the spiritually endowed "shoot from the stump of Jesse." These last two passages would have been recognized then, as they still are today, as messianic prophecies, and it seems likely that Isaiah's thought has moved progressively from the virgin's child, "God with us," to whom the land of Judah belongs, to these fuller expressions of the Davidic hope. If then Isa 7:14 is taken as the opening of what will be the developing theme of a wonder child throughout Isa 7-11, it can with good reason be suggested that it points beyond the immediate political crisis of the eighth century B.C., not only in Matthew's typological scheme but also in Isaiah's intention.

  • To focus on these issues raised by modern scholarship is, however, to be distracted from the purpose of Matthew in including this quotation. Three elements in this Isaiah text would have attracted Matthew's attention, two with regard to his immediate narrative context (a child born to a virgin mother, and the naming of the child) and one in relation to his underlying christology, the title "God with us." His one deviation from the LXX is in the plural subject of the verb, "they will call." In his immediate narrative context it will be Joseph who will give the child his name (which neither the Hebrew text's "she will call" nor the LXX's "you will call" would have allowed), but that name will be Jesus, not Immanuel. Matthew's plural may therefore be looking ahead to what "people" (especially those he will "save from their sins," v. 21) will eventually learn to say about Jesus, that in him God is with us. We have no indication that Matthew's plural verb came from any source other than his own creative interpretation of the text.

  [End quote]
• 

  nonjwspouse

  My husband brought up to me about the star being from satan to tell Herod where Jesus was located and the magi alerting Herod to the presence and meaning of the star.

  I reminded my husband the family of Jesus was poor, and if Herod was alerted about the star, which brought the magi to jesus, then the magi's gifts and warning to the family to get out of there allowed this poor family to leave with the worth of the gifts giving them the ability to leave. The family could not have made that trip with nothing of worth to pay their way. The magi helped save Jesus from the prophetic wrath of Herod. Why would Satan save Jesus by alerting the magi to his presence and location? Since the birth of Jesus would still eventually be known with or without the star, then the star helped Jesus, not put him in danger.

  My husband gets upset at me about then and refuse to discuss it anymore
• 

  kaik

  As I had remembered from 1980s here is the WT:July 1, 1985 Watchtower:

  "Who do you think provided the star that moved in the sky to guide the astrologers? Remember, the star did not guide them directly to Jesus in Bethlehem. Rather, they were led to Jerusalem where they came in touch with King Herod, who wanted to kill Jesus. And he would have done so if God had not stepped in and warned the astrologers not to tell Herod. It was God's enemy, Satan the Devil, who wanted Jesus killed, and he used that star to try to accomplish this purpose."